3 ms·
This question should really be answered (props for bringing it up), without that being the case the value of the research is severely compromised!
by dingdingdang 12y ago
This question should really be answered (props for bringing it up), without that being the case the value of the research is severely compromised!
- keenerd 12y agoIt looks like one of the factors was "cumulative days use of any pesticide". However this did not take plot size into account - a farmer with a large plot and an appropriate use of pesticides is in the same category as a farmer with a small plot and an overuse of pesticides. "Farm size" was mentioned in the previously identified confounding factors, but not one that was corrected for in the study after seeing it made no difference? Education was a confounding factor that was accounted for. "Cumulative days use per acre" would be an interesting factor to test, but varies greatly between various crops and climates. "Crop loss despite pesticide application" would be the real one to measure but that requires a certain degree of god-like knowledge. Days-use-per-acre over time and yields-per-acre over time is probably the best that could be managed, where "time" is at least 5-10 years. One term in the paper went over my head and I can't find a definition or sufficient context. Does "ever-use" mean a small amount or a large amount? (once-ever or for-ever)